It is important that our elected representatives, as well the general public, know about the problems besetting these aircrafts; that way we can hopefully have it replaced with a fighter that can serve our needs.

Name: I totally agree! SECRETS in our country have become a joke! The U 2, SR 71, F117, B1 & B2, were NOT known about for a long time! The SR 71, for me, was a great secret, rumors, until they finally retired her! I have no doubt that they now have something else flying aorund, BUT, WE do not need to know about it!

Maybe technical glitches and faults like this could be kept secret but why should they? It's not like this gives a foreign intelligence service and upperhand. And how would one propose keeping these aircraft secret like the SR-71 and B-2 in the 21st century? Not ever flying them in public places or in air bases near populated areas?

The whole point of disclosing this information is so you the public know that the people developing the plane are being held accountable for fixing problems. Do you have a problem with being honest about your failures? If you do, it's probably because you have no intention of fixing them.

Many years ago Lockheed developed the F104 Starfighter. This jet at the time was the fastest fighter, and the enemies on the ground would never shoot this one down. The plane had a very small wingspan so pilot control was an issue. This issue was so tragic, this jet had two nicknames, "the flying coffin", and "the widow maker". Back in the Vietnam war era there were no disclosures of design or construction flaws, just build it, pay for it later, and lets defeat the enemy at all cost. I am glad to see for the sake of your military aviators and their families, things have changed, almost.

$400B in this bad investment and the Republicans will continue to defend the military's spending.
A relatively very small $600M in a bad investment with Solyndra and they're on the verge of demanding impeachment.

And we don't even need these fighters! Renewable energy, yeah... we actually DO need that.

What kind of logic is that? It's like putting someone down because they got a broken wrist. This is a nice piece of machinery with a couple minor problems...if we solved every last engineering issue before building the first one of anything, we'd never build any!

LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER! One would "think" that with all the "smarts" these people have they could build a plane without continual problems? OUR country has built some great planes, in the past, but it appears that MAYBE things are getting a little to advanced? The B 52, yes I know it is not a fighter, has become a legend! The A 10, warthog. A great aircraft for our ground trrops, and many more. If we already have tested and "proven" aircraft, WHY not upgrade them? Better electronics, better missiles? WHY continue to "throw" money away, and continue to pay the contractor when they cannot get it right?

Or from another perspective too expensive and too much for our current or future needs. And since you think it's a cool little bomber, did you know the Air Force also wants to start building a new bomber? We are already a pretty formidable opponent, at least to people engaging in the same kind of conventional warfare we are preparing for. But guys hiding in caves with cellphones and improvised bombs seem to be our current problem. Certainly a new bomber will fix that, right?

This plane has been designed to last the next 40 years and will most likely be the last manned fighter this country builds. There are going to be growing pains, as with any aircraft. The SR leaked fuel while taxing, the A10 is nimble but slow and can't carry nearly as much armorment as the F35. These issues will be worked out, just give it time.

How many half-trillion dollar fighter programs have YOU been involved with? I don't think you can judge these people...just because your job answering phones or dropping fries in the fryer is easy does not mean that theirs is, regardless of their 'smarts'.

I had a conversation at work the other day about this same topic. Why don't we cut some military spending to ease the debt crisis and/or spend the savings on domestic issues. We have spent trillions on military weapons that will never be used, therefore they were a useless waste of money. People will say no, those weapons were a deterrent.

F35 is one of the largest investments towards modernizing our air capabilities. United States air power is aging and every year becomes more and more obsolete. Modernizing in the post-modern era is not and will not be cheap. Aircraft (especially military) have become complex in terms of equipment and structure. Everything down to the paint on the airfoil is specialized to give our airmen and women an advantage. This costs money, lots of money. And unlike your automotive, aviation is EXPENSIVE. The aviation industry will always make sure they get top dollar for their aircraft, because they are top of the line, and unlike cars, the next model may not come out in decades, meaning they must get their budget here and now for future projects and to stay in business. Because they are still testing the F35, I'm not worried about the grounding of the fleet, this means someone is actually doing their job and ensuring a pilot doesn't have a mid air problem that may be fatal, and then scrap the entire fleet all together... that would truly be a waste of money.

Ferit: In response to your comment: The fighter/bomber aircraft has exisisted for quite a while! The F4, F111, F14, F16, all were fighter/bombers. As far as the "jump jet" capabilities, vertical take off and landing, the Marines and others are using the british Harrier, actually for quite a while. HOWEVER, when I was in the Army, attending an Air/Ground course, I had the opportunity to talk with a british pilot about the Harrier. While he said it was a great plane, you had to remember that vertical take off and landings required more power, and fuel, to accomplish this feat! Once in the air he also said your next task was to find a "tanker" to top off the plane! It also is a fighter/bomber.

Jonathan: In fact the U-2 was only an unconfirmed rumor until they shot one down, "Gary Powers". The SR 71, blackbird. Same thing, only rumors and speculation until it was "retired". For me, that says they have "something" else, that we do not know about, as a replacement.

Just look at it this way, for the cost of those planes to date, and this is before they have seen a day of service, the government could have installed solar panels on 5 million homes free of charge. Just this one worthless airplane! It's turning into the new B-1 Bomber which also never saw a day of service. If they would simply cut military waste we could replace nuclear plants with solar and wind. If they would simply match Russia with military spending we could replace all nuclear and fossil fuel based power with renewable energy. That's without getting rid of the rest of government waste.

About This Blog

This blog â This Just In â will no longer be updated. Looking for the freshest news from CNN? Go to our ever-popular CNN.com homepage on your desktop or your mobile device, and join the party at @cnnbrk, the world's most-followed account for news.